Author Topic: Soul flayer woes...  (Read 24123 times)

Offline AeA

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 13
  • Karma: +3/-0
Re: Soul flayer woes...
« Reply #15 on: September 22, 2005, 07:07:26 AM »
although you would constantly have to state exactly how far in HB1 you are flying since not all troops are the same 'height'.

Why complicate the game needlessly? Most tabletop wargames intentionally disallow one-way LOS and/or close combat and at least in my worthless opinion, height bands in Chronopia fall into the exact same group: X is flying in HB 1, Y is on the ground in HB 1, hence both can engage each other. Who cares if theoretically X could hover just beyond Y's vertical reach assuming maximum height difference, since the whole concept of height bands only exists as an abstraction in the game mechanics, much in the same way as the perfectly flat gaming table is an abstraction of not-quite-so-flat terrain.

However, if a more detailed tracking of height bands is what one desires, it's trivial to simply increase the resolution used to track a unit's elevation. For instance, define one height band as 0.3", replace all occurences of "height band" in movement with "up to 10 height bands" and you're done.

Just my 0.02 €, which rounds down to 0 in Finland.

lancekilljoy

  • Guest
Re: Soul flayer woes...
« Reply #16 on: September 22, 2005, 07:27:56 AM »
although you would constantly have to state exactly how far in HB1 you are flying since not all troops are the same 'height'.

Why complicate the game needlessly?

Indeed, i do not wish to complicate this... The problem comes back to measuring the template attack and I think that the consensis so far is to lay it flat if sf is in HB 1. If that is the case, then yes, both sf and troops on table-top, and consequently HB 1, may beat each other silly.

However, then i would expect sf to climb to HB 2 and flame from there. Does the 2-d template become 3-d? Since template is of finite length, where do you measure it from since HB 2 is from 3 - 6 in? (template is appx 4 in long?) In essence, you have just moved the question up one HB...

However, if a more detailed tracking of height bands is what one desires, it's trivial to simply increase the resolution used to track a unit's elevation. For instance, define one height band as 0.3", replace all occurences of "height band" in movement with "up to 10 height bands" and you're done.

This i think would be one solution, though instead of the slightly sarcastic suggestion of 0.3"  :P, i would change it to 1". But, I really would like to know how this type of thing would be decided in tourny play.

Offline Nikodemus

  • Journeyman
  • *
  • Posts: 28
  • Karma: +1/-0
Re: Soul flayer woes...
« Reply #17 on: September 22, 2005, 07:47:28 AM »
Quote
However, then i would expect sf to climb to HB 2 and flame from there. Does the 2-d template become 3-d? Since template is of finite length, where do you measure it from since HB 2 is from 3 - 6 in? (template is appx 4 in long?) In essence, you have just moved the question up one HB...

This is not allowed, only placing the template in your own heightband is allowed, to flame models 3 inches tall (or smaller), you have to go to HB1, and then you can be attacked by other models in CC...



Offline Ruther

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 233
  • Karma: +15/-7
    • Warzone Deutschland
Re: Soul flayer woes...
« Reply #18 on: September 22, 2005, 07:58:03 AM »
@Nicodemus
Thats exactly my opinion as well  :D

(We always played it that way)
He Who Laughs Last, Thinks Fastest

Offline AeA

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 13
  • Karma: +3/-0
Re: Soul flayer woes...
« Reply #19 on: September 22, 2005, 09:58:24 AM »
However, then i would expect sf to climb to HB 2 and flame from there. Does the 2-d template become 3-d?
From a strictly theoretical point of view (the rules as they stand are indeed quite explicit on templates staying inside height bands), the 3D representation of directly placed templates is an interesting question. If height bands were defined with enough resolution for the 3D shape of the template to matter, I think it would be fair to assume the vertical cross-section of a directly placed template to be nearly identical to the horizontal one, since  they are typically unconstrained bursts of flame, powder or some other lightweight, rapidly expanding substance.

This i think would be one solution, though instead of the slightly sarcastic suggestion of 0.3"  :P, i would change it to 1".
Powers of 10 are easy to multiply with, hence the example factor. <g> 1" height bands might work; UWZ uses them (though I personally would rather use Chronopia's 3" ones) and they'd certainly eliminate some of the extreme-case elevation-related artifacts... OTOH, 3" height bands are tall enough that a d4 is usually more than adequate for tracking a flyer's elevation and a tetrahedron is very unlikely to get accidentally reinitialized as a result of bumping the table. *shrug*

lancekilljoy

  • Guest
Re: Soul flayer woes...
« Reply #20 on: September 22, 2005, 02:54:56 PM »
From a strictly theoretical point of view (the rules as they stand are indeed quite explicit on templates staying inside height bands), the 3D representation of directly placed templates is an interesting question. If height bands were defined with enough resolution for the 3D shape of the template to matter, I think it would be fair to assume the vertical cross-section of a directly placed template to be nearly identical to the horizontal one, since  they are typically unconstrained bursts of flame, powder or some other lightweight, rapidly expanding substance.

but, if you are playing like that (3-D), i don't understand why you wouldn't be able to flame across height bands... ??? It seems to me that the rules do state that you can't flame across height bands (from what people have posted) and that if you are at the same height band you just assume that the flyer who is breathing fire (or whatever the template's origin is) is at the same height in inches as the other flyer before the flame occurs. that is, of course, if you are not in hand-to-hand already. ex. hawks attack sf at HB 2 could be in a 360 degree radius around sf...

Excelsior

  • Guest
Re: Soul flayer woes...
« Reply #21 on: September 23, 2005, 06:45:23 AM »
Okay Folks - Just to clarify 100% this is how it works:

The Soul Flayer can only target models in THE SAME height band. This can be found within the Chronopia rule book:
"Directly placed Templated weapons cannot be targeted at Flyers outside the attackers Height band."


Models on the ground would be considered to be within height band 1, as height band 1 is hovering. However, all close combat models could attack the Soul Flayer in height band 1 - not just models with spears. If the Soul Flayer wants to avoid being vulnerable in close combat, it would have to go to height band 2.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2005, 06:47:47 AM by Excelsior »

Offline AeA

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 13
  • Karma: +3/-0
Re: Soul flayer woes...
« Reply #22 on: September 23, 2005, 07:00:47 AM »
but, if you are playing like that (3-D), i don't understand why you wouldn't be able to flame across height bands... ???
As I said, it's strictly a theoretical issue. I'm perfectly happy with the abstraction that 3" height bands represent, BUT had I house-ruled the game to the point where I needed to worry about the exact 3D volume of a template, height bands as a discrete representation of a unit's elevation would exist no more. And if there were no height bands, there'd be no need for any restrictions other than those imposed by facing, special unit rules and common sense to where exactly you can aim a directly placed template.

Hmm, now that I think about it, allowing free 3D aim would make the Flame lance an interesting point-defence AA weapon. This calls for further experimentation - are there any Finns interested in a series of playtest evenings around?


It seems to me that the rules do state that you can't flame across height bands (from what people have posted)
Don't rely just on what people tell you; check the paragraph on directly placed templates.

and that if you are at the same height band you just assume that the flyer who is breathing fire (or whatever the template's origin is) is at the same height in inches as the other flyer before the flame occurs.
Or close enough (say within an inch or two), allowing for the inevitable altitude variations in muscle-powered flight, some degree of aiming, not-exactly-represented terrain and a multitude of other insignificant things that get abstracted away by the game mechanics in favour of a manageable gaming experience.

Plus most flyers are physically large models that take up most of a height band anyway, so slight elevation differences would matter even less.

dagorauk

  • Guest
Re: Soul flayer woes...
« Reply #23 on: September 23, 2005, 08:19:46 AM »
The wording probably was just intended so that the balefire couldn't be breathed upward into another height band...

And if you're playing elves, why don't you have Militia, Spearmen, or Archers? Or a Lotus Eater? If your Devout player is a fan of the Soul Flayer, introduce him to the Flying Dragonbane.

I have all of those, the problem comes in with the massive amount of wounds that the sf has (5 wounds). The flying dragonbane may do a maximum of 4 wounds and then be eaten. Milita, spearmen have to make a dread test before attacking the sf, both having about average leadership and neither have i been able to fully take down a sf (partly bad dice rolling, partly the strength of the weapons). I have used archers effectively against the sf, but that is only when the player makes the mistake of putting the sf closer than any of his other units.

I know there's a loophole so you can attack units further away...can't remember it though. It's something along the lines of if all enemies are X distance away or if the closest enemies are already in CC or something like that....
Can't look it up, at the University without a book.

Offline T Prime

  • Big Kahuna, Chairman of the Board
  • Administrator
  • Member Prime
  • *****
  • Posts: 6468
  • Karma: +75/-0
Re: Soul flayer woes...
« Reply #24 on: September 23, 2005, 10:31:15 AM »
Who is "Excelsior"? Please identify youself. Your forum name is not appropriate.
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
Excelsior!!

Offline Coil

  • Board Member- First Crusader
  • Administrator
  • Member Emeritus
  • *****
  • Posts: 1228
  • Karma: +88/-1
Re: Soul flayer woes...
« Reply #25 on: September 23, 2005, 10:35:09 AM »
Dag, I believe you are thinking of the Targeting priorities rule (p69). I wouldn't consider those a loophole. :)

A missile troop always have to target the nearest model in that unit. They do not however have to target the closest unit with one exception

Fourth bullet point under Targeting Priorites page 69:
Quote
Missile weapon troops cannot choose to fire upon a more distant Unit if a visible, unpanicked enemy Unit is within 12 inches and within their arc of fire. They must fire at the "Closer Unit" as it poses an immediate threat to their safety.

Offline Topkick

  • Board Member
  • Administrator
  • Member Emeritus
  • *****
  • Posts: 3052
  • Karma: +222/-22
  • Former Crusader Coordinator - Midwest Region
Re: Soul flayer woes...
« Reply #26 on: September 23, 2005, 10:46:46 AM »
Who is "Excelsior"? Please identify youself. Your forum name is not appropriate.

I wondered if it was Jon with a new handle so he could be ID'd as a rep of the company. Guess not.
Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind. - Dr. Seuss (1904 - 1991)

Homebase:  South Central Wisconsin
E-Bay Handle: Topkick-890

Offline T Prime

  • Big Kahuna, Chairman of the Board
  • Administrator
  • Member Prime
  • *****
  • Posts: 6468
  • Karma: +75/-0
Re: Soul flayer woes...
« Reply #27 on: September 23, 2005, 02:33:17 PM »
Jon is out today.

As for the debate, I apologize if I muddied the waters. The CM revision to flight is in my head and I default to it. How about I post that revision and you use it instead?
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
Excelsior!!

Offline Nikodemus

  • Journeyman
  • *
  • Posts: 28
  • Karma: +1/-0
Re: Soul flayer woes...
« Reply #28 on: September 23, 2005, 02:38:34 PM »
That would be great! Seems like a lot of the rules for the new book are already finished....  ;D

Offline T Prime

  • Big Kahuna, Chairman of the Board
  • Administrator
  • Member Prime
  • *****
  • Posts: 6468
  • Karma: +75/-0
Re: Soul flayer woes...
« Reply #29 on: September 23, 2005, 02:40:09 PM »
I will start a new thread tonight for it.
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
Excelsior!!